For all its incompetency, the left is very good at PR. They understand human psychology in a way that I fear the right is woefully behind on. This was proven a long time ago when Saul Alinsky wrote "Rules for Radicals," which you can see is a perfect guide on how to seize the human mind and heart with a few easy steps.
READ: Alinsky Tactics Are Very Outdated and the Left Hasn't Caught on Yet
Alinsky's guidebook is losing its power in the modern age, but it definitely still works to some degree, specifically on the low-info voter. Right now, you can see the left deploying these tactics on Donald Trump's VP pick, J.D. Vance. Vance is being attacked as a misogynist and "weird," and the left is using a singular moment to give their attacks heft: his "childless cat ladies" moment on Tucker Carlson's show.
JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 22, 2024
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
That one phrase is being used to generate an entire movement to support the Democrats by taking what Vance said and making it personal to a bunch of voters, namely the large swath of single Millennial women who may or may not own cats.
Vance would go on to elaborate, stating that this wasn't necessarily a criticism of everyone without children but "a criticism of the increasingly anti-parent and anti-child attitude of the left.”
Two things. The way he said it wasn't exactly wise, and he probably should have gone for accuracy over edginess here, but on the other hand...
... he's not wrong.
Firstly, it's pretty obvious Democrats aren't friendly to parents and families, and I can throw out a boatload of examples.
Siccing the DOJ on parents for standing up for their kids against corrupt school boards? That was Democrats.
California weaponizing the government to come down on parental rights? That was Democrats.
Fighting back against parental rights in schools in Florida? That was Democrats.
Weaponizing the IRS against parent rights groups? That was Democrats.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Democrats have a bad habit of siding against parents and children in order to embrace activist groups and unions, many of which consist of childless people who have no stake in the future, and that's one thing that Vance is trying to get across. People without children don't see the future quite like people with children do. The "dual income, no kids" crowd's visions of the future involves planning maybe a year or two out at maximum. Parents look at timeframes in decades. They are far more invested in the future because the future is where their kids will have to live and work, and they want to set the best stage possible for them to succeed.
It should be very telling that this often interferes with Democrat plans and that more often than not, Democrats or leftist-leaning forces, find themselves at odds with parents. Moreover, it's parents that Democrats just can't seem to overcome, making them one of their biggest threats to power.
Vance highlighted where they're vulnerable, and as such, they're attempting to cover their vulnerability by making what he said personal to single people.
To be clear, childless people should have just as much of a say in the future of this country as parents do. Not having a child doesn't make you less than a parent. Many people don't have children for a multitude of reasons, and many of them are absolutely valid. Being childless and owning a cat doesn't automatically make you worthless.
But if we're being brutally honest, Vance's reference to there being a miserable element to them is spot on. Women have never been more successful in the business world, but are woefully miserable in many other aspects of their lives. Emotionally, they go unfulfilled. They drift into their 30s alone and childless. Their windows closing, their clocks ticking down, they either become desperate or bitter. Go on TikTok, and you'll find a whole host of women who either tearfully confess their regret for putting their eggs in an unfulfilling basket or lashing out in their anger at other groups, usually men and traditionally-minded Americans.
READ: How Do Women Define 'Success' vs. How Society Defines It?
And this is the group that the Democrats are trying to motivate and spread their message that Vance is just another misogynistic dude-bro who hates women and wants them, pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen, preferably with a chain around their ankle and a red handmaid's robe around their shoulders.
That's obviously not the case. Vance is a family man who understands that Democrats are using women as a tool. Hell, they can't even define what a woman is half the time, but now they're suddenly concerned for their status? Right.
In the end, Vance as VP is going to be far better for women than Kamala Harris will be as president. A rising tide lifts all boats, and Harris doesn't know the first thing about sailing the economic seas. If she were to be elected, the first thing she'd do is turn her back on women and embrace the radical fringe groups she surrounds herself with. They'll make policies, not families, not parents, and not American women.
